Strengthening project management structures

Paper submitted to: R&D Management Conference 2018“R&Designing Innovation: Transformational Challenges for Organizations and Society” June, 30th-July, 4th, 2018, Milan, Italy

Strengthening project management structures: diagnosis of the time distribution of professors working hours Aníbal N. Cassanelli 1, Alejandro Cantú 2, Jorge Moreno 3, Germán Rossetti 4, Leticia Arcusin 5 and Melisa De Greef 6 1

Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, [email protected] Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, [email protected] 3 Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, [email protected] 4 Universidad Nacional del Litoral, [email protected] 5 Universidad Nacional del Litoral, [email protected] 6 Universidad Nacional del Litoral, [email protected] 2

In Argentina, universities play a preponderant role in the allocation and distribution of resources for R&D projects. Growing complexities of management tasks generally fall on the professors who lead the projects, compromise their participation in scientific activities and do not add value to the scope of the project. This paper aims to present an exploratory study of the distribution of the activities carried out by professors during their working day. Professors belong to three Argentinian universities. A survey reveals the times that professors dedicate to different tasks (Teaching, Transfer, Project Management and Others). From the analysis of the information it can be observed that Teaching and Research are the activities that demand the greatest amount of time, followed by Project Management, Transfer, and Others. Professors consume an average of 15% of their weekly dedication in activities inherent to Project Management. Among the main consequences of the study, due to the effort and dedication required by Project Management activities, it could be consider that the implementation of a specialized area in R&D projects at universities would allow a greater capacity to identify funding sources and to administrate R&D projects, enabling professors devote their time to activities linked to their main abilities.

1. Introduction Science, technology, and innovation play a fundamental role in the creation of wealth, economic growth and the quality of life of society. They are motors of development and indispensable for the construction of new capacities that are essential in the 21st century. Experience over the years has shown that it is unthinkable to separate socio-economic development from advances in science and technology, and its application to address solutions to society's problems (Menendez and Castro, 2010). They are substantive elements for the strategies of development, poverty reduction and construction of the Knowledge Society. R&D activities relevance is evident in the investment made by countries in terms of their Gross Domestic Product (National Science Board, 2016). According to data from the World Bank, the global investment recorded during 2013 in the R&D sector was US$ 1671 billion. In this period, the United States, China, Japan and Europe invested between 2 1


and 4% of their GDP in the R&D sector -representing 88% of the global investment for that period-, while the region of Latin America and the Caribbean had an average investment of 0.77% of GDP. Most of the investment in national R&D is channeled by public institutions through the financing of different projects. In Argentina, universities and science and technology financing agencies play a preponderant role in the allocation and distribution of economic resources (Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation, 2011) and in research groups, activities related to project management have become indispensable (Cassanelli and Benavidez, 2014). The responsibilities related to these resources generally fall on the main professors, and due to their increasing amount and complexity represent a significant time dedication of their daily activities (Guiridlian Guarino, 2016). In the bibliography, there are strategies for study those aspects, both in the organization and R&D projects management (Niedergassel and Leker, 2011; Laruccia at al., 2012; Lichtenthaler, 2009; Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006; Dodgson et al., 2006; Aronson et al., 2013). Among them, those that affirm that the main professor must manage their projects and, therefore, strengthen their management skills in order to develop responsibility with greater solvency. In this way, the demand for work hours that are subtracted from those dedicated to the specific tasks of the professor is maintained (Giménez, 2008; Guiridlian Guarino, 2016; Petroni et al., 2012, Divjak and Kukec, 2008; Verma et al., 2011) Other approaches point out the actions of university transfer offices, which provide administrative support, institutional information, links with the environment and society, information on calls, , to teachers for the formulation, execution and closure of R&D projects (Aginako and Otegi, 2011; Alabau, 2011). These initiatives represent a positive development, but they still consider the main professor as the interlocutor between the organization and the project. This circumstance would be limiting his dedication to the development of the research objectives for which his participation is essential (Divjak and Kukec, 2008; Lambert, 2006). The research program "Systematic study of R&D projects management in the field of universities (15/G478ING484/17)" of the Faculty of Engineering of the National University of Mar del Plata, is oriented to the study of the organization and R&D projects management projects in order to optimize their execution. In this sense, it is observed that the research groups of the universities have real capacities to achieve the objectives set in the R&D projects. This affirmation is based on the production of excellent results, the knowledge transferred to the productive and services sector, and the training of high quality and specialized human resources; It is also reflected in the skills for the formulation of competitive projects at the national, regional and international levels, such as in the connection with administrative structures that provide support to projects. It can be speculated that the incorporation of methodologies and structures of project management organization for the R&D sector (Villamizar et al., 2013) would allow to enhance the capacities of the research groups of the universities. Likewise, in order to guarantee a positive impact in the R&D sector, interventions must consider the type of project, taking into account the particularities of basic, applied and development research projects (Kerzner, 2001; Rodney Turner, 2009; Kerzner 2011; Cassanelli et al., 2016 y Cassanelli et al., 2014).

2. Methodology This paper presents an exploratory-descriptive study (Cassanelli and Benavidez, 2013) aboout the distribution of the activities carried out by professors during their working day and aspects related to R&D project management (times, human resources training, search for financing, among others), in an extensive sample with transversal design (Cassanelli and Benavidez, 2013; Yin, 2015; Roesch, 2005; Gagnon, 2010) made up of professors from the Engineering Faculties of three National Universities: Univseridad Nacional de Mar del Plata (UNMdP), Universidad Nacional de Cuyo (UNCuyo) and Universidad Nacional del Litoral (UNLitoral). This will allow to have relevant information to advance in the study and development of proposals for the optimization of projects management. To collect information, an instrument was developed (questionnaire) whose design (Cassanelli et al., 2017) included a literature review of similar data collection approaches (Ynoub, 2014; Pulido y Perez, 2003; Aguilar et al., 2011; Codner et. al, 2005; Bauer et al., 2010), and a comparative analysis of variables and dimensions (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2014). The questionnaire was self-administered and mediated in a specific platform of on-line forms, in order to facilitate the realization and to reduce the processing time. Time dedicated to Teaching, Research, Transfer, Project Management and Other activities are consulted in the first instance, both in relative percentage and in annual, monthly and weekly dedication. Subsequently, it is oriented to inquire about the context of the respondent (place where he develops his activities, research team, number of R&D projects in which he participates, sources of financing used, among others). In particular, Teaching area is linked to the graduate and postgraduate activities carried out regularly at the university where the respondent works. Research area refers to all activity carried out by the professor linked to aspects of their knowledge and main competences in R&D projects. Transfer area is related to the traditional activities of knowledge transfer from the university to society; include training, outreach, conferences, etc. Other area includes management activities in career departments, academic units, universities, participation in commissions, etc. In particular, Project Management area includes all the activities that the professor performs compulsorily for and to receive funds necessary 2


for the realization of research projects; These include: identification of funding sources, formulation of the proposal, fund management, management of human and material resources, administrative reports to the sponsor, accounting, purchases, acquisitions, execution, supervision, control and closure of projects.

2. Results Interviewees carry out their activities in research groups at the Faculty of Engineering of the UNMdP, UNCuyo and the UNLitoral of three provinces of Argentina. These groups are conformed by specialists with strong competences in their area of knowledge and in topics related to the scope of the projects. They belong to the higher categories of the categorization system of professors-researchers of the Secretariat of University Policies (SPU) of the Ministry of Education of the Argentine Republic, which classifies the agents into five levels (Category I receives the highest rating). Among the responsibilities of these highly qualified people are R&D projects management, training of human resources and formulation and management of projects. The total number of professors who answered the survey is shown in the Total column of Table1. Additionally, the distribution of valid answers discriminated by category of the quality system of professors is observed. University UNMdP UNCuyo UNLitoral

Total 53 46 23

Category I 13% 9% 48%

Answers Category II Category III 10% 35% 9% 41% 22% 22%

Category IV 19% 22% 9%

Category V 23% 19% 0%

Table 1. Answers distribution by Category Answers obtained to the question "Please indicate the months in which you completed at least one week of XXX activities in the last year" (where XXX corresponds to Teaching, Research, Project Management, Transfers or Others) for each Activity and for each month of 2017 are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3. In the graphs each bar represents the sum of positive responses to the query if it recorded activity during the month. For the three Universities, the activities that demand the greatest workload for professors are Teaching and Research. To a lesser extent, there is R&D Project Management, followed by Transfer and Others. For all activities, the first month of the year shows less activity that coincides with the annual recess of the universities. For the other months of the year each one of the activities is shown with sustained levels with moderate variations.

Figure1. UNMdP. Annual distribution of activities

3


Figure 2. UNCuyo. Annual distribution of activities

Figure 3. UNLitoral. Annual distribution of activities Table 2 shows for each activity the average, maximum and minimum values obtained in each of the universities. R&D Project Management demands an average of similar relative dedication for all cases, from 12% to 14% of the weekly work day. Teaching activity includes a range from 28% to 40% of the weekly work day, with UNCuyo being the one that shows the highest value. In Research the range is from 30% to 47% of the weekly work day, and the maximum is shown in the UNMdP. Transfer activities exhibit similar results at the three universities. In Others, the range covers from 11% to 22% of the weekly workday with a maximum in UNCuyo. University Average UNMdP Maximum Minimun Average UNCuyo Maximum Minimun Average UNLitoral Maximum Minimun

Teaching 28% 50% 0% 40% 90% 0% 31% 60% 5%

Research 47% 80% 20% 30% 100% 5% 40% 80% 10%

Project Management 14% 60% 0% 12% 50% 0% 13% 50% 0%

Table 2. Relative dedication per week 4

Transfer 13% 30% 0% 15% 80% 0% 15% 50% 0%

Others 11% 40% 0% 22% 80% 0% 14% 50% 0%


Research groups where the respondents develop the activities are integrated with a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 12 members, as shown in Table 3. Within these groups, the number of professors categorized is between 44.6% and 58.3 % of the total of members. Table 3 also shows that each respondent manages, on average, between 1.8 and 3.2 projects, and is responsible for the management of between 0.9 and 1.6 research fellows. Research group University

Professor

Members

Categorized

Projects

12 6.7 9.4

58.3% 58.2% 44.6%

2.6 1.8 3.2

UNMdP UNCuyo UNLitoral

Research fellows 1.5 0.9 1.6

Table 3. Research group composition and professors’ directive responsibilities Funding for the development of the professors’ R&D projects comes from different sources: international, national and university agencies that are the headquarters of the research group. The results on the origin of funds from the portfolio of projects directed by the respondents can be seen in Table 4. For the case of the UNMdP and the 2.6 projects directed by professor (data from Table 3), international sources represent the 20 %, nationals 84% and university ones 76%. For the UNCuyo, the percentages are 2%, 41% and 77% respectively, and for UNIT, 41%, 95% and 86%. University

Funding Sources National 84% 41% 95%

International 20% 2% 41%

UNMdP UNCuyo UNLitoral

University 76% 77% 86%

Table 4. Funding sources origin Table 5 shows the relationship between the category of professors and their responsibility in R&D projects management. All Category I and II investigators of UNMdP and UNCuyo direct projects and, in the case of UNLitoral, 82% of Category I and 80% of Category II. The responsibility of the management decreases in categories III, IV and V, with the exception of category V in UNCuyo. University UNMdP UNCuyo UNLitoral

Category I 100% 100% 82%

Project Direction Category III 78% 77% 80%

Category II 100% 100% 80%

Category IV 40% 57% 50%

Category V 25% 83% 0%

Table 5. R&D Project direction by professor category Tables 6, 7 and 8 show the relationship between the origin of project funds and the category of respondents, for each of the participating universities.

Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category V

UNMdP. Funding sources by category International National 10% 14% 10% 12% 30% 35% 30% 21% 20% 19%

University 15% 8% 36% 18% 23%

Table 6. UNMdP. Funds origin and project director category

5



UNCuyo. Funding sources by category International National 0% 13% 0% 7% 0% 33% 100% 20% 0% 27%

University 11% 11% 36% 21% 21%

Table 7. UNCuyo. Funds origin and project director category


UNLitoral. Funding sources by category International National 56% 52% 11% 14% 11% 24% 22% 10% 0% 0%

University 47% 21% 21% 11% 0%

Table 8. UNLitoral. Funds origin and project director category

4. Discussion of results From Figures 1, 2 and 3 it is evident that professors are working on the activities mentioned during every month of the year. Only a decrease in activities is observed during the first month, January, which coincides with the summer holiday of three universities. From the results, it can be said that Project Management is an activity that is developed continuously during all months of the year. During each month of the year, Project Management of R&D activity is permanently in third position, always above Transfer and Others activities. In Table 4, the results show that Teaching activity demands an average of 33% of professors’ working hours for the three universities. Research activity corresponds to 39%, and 13% to Project Management. Transfer and Others have a similar behaviour to Project Management. For all cases, the maximum for Project Management is between 50% and 60% of the weekly work. The relative composition for these activities remains stable during the months of the year of the consultation. Table 5 shows that professors with Categories I, II and III have the responsibility of direct and manage R&D projects. On average, as shown in Table 2, for the three universities, 13% of the workday of these highly qualified human resources is not associated to activities in their specialty. This is equivalent to say that the entire staff of highly qualified professors of these institutions does not work for a month and a half in their area of knowledge (13%*12 months = 1.56 months). Another way to consider this result is to think that, during one year, every 100 professors on the best R&D categories, 87 are working in R&D and Teaching activities and 13 are dedicated to R&D Project Management. This important amount of highly qualified human resources is a significant incentive for the analysis and development of initiatives that aim to minimize the impact of management activities on the professors' agenda. From Table 4, it can be observed that the funding that the professors access for their project portfolios comes mainly from national organizations and the university of the research group. For international funds, the highest response value corresponds to the UNLitoral (40%), the UNMdP presents an intermediate value (20%) and the UNCuyo has the minimum of the serie (2%). It is clear that research groups direct their efforts to present R&D projects in national agencies and their own university. Table 5 shows the distribution of responsibility for the management of R&D projects by Professor Category. In general, all professor form Category I and II consulted have project management responsibilities, decreasing in categories III, IV and V. Tables 6, 7 and 8 show the relationship between the origin of funds for R&D projects and the category of professors who have the responsibility of its management. Categories I and II show stability in the proportion of professors who respond positively to each of the funding sources (with the exception of UNCuyo). For international funds, professors with Category I only reaches 56% in the UNLitoral. UNMdP has an inverse behavior in the progression of the percentage of international funds according to that category related to UNLitoral. The other two universities achieve significantly lower values than those presented by the UNLitoral. 6


4. Conclusions This paper presents the results of a diagnostic study about the activities of professors who develop their work in Faculties of Engineering of three Universities from Argentina (UNMdP, UNCuyo y UNLitoral). Based on the results, it can be affirmed that R&D Project Management is an activity that is carried out continuously during all months from 2017. During each month, the activity of R&D Project Management is permanently between the second and the third position in time allocation of professors, always over the activities of Transfers and Others. It is also observed in Table 2, that on average Teaching activity demands 33%, Research activity 39%, and R&D Project Management 13% of their weekly work time. The management of R&D projects competes with central Research activities and reduces the participation of the professor in the growth of work teams and other specific activities. It could be consider that a decrease in the demand of management activity would allow professors assigning a greater effort to other main activities (research, teaching, etc.). The funding that professors access for their project portfolios are mainly from national organizations and universities. The participation of international funds is comparatively lower. Research groups guide their efforts to formulate and manage R&D projects in national agencies and the university. This low participation of international funds could be justified in the additional processes needed for the formulation requests and the management of resources, which discourages the groups when considering the investment of additional time and efforts for those activities. Finally, the realization of the activities implied in R&D Project Management are essential for the continuity of the projects. The assignment of these activities to the best-qualified professors raises the problem of occupying highly qualified resources in tasks that do not add value to the objectives of the projects. Additionally, it could be consider that the search for international funds presents additional processes, both in the formulation of the requests and in the management of resources, which in some way discourages the groups when considering the effort. From results obtained, it can be affirmed that there would be an opportunity to expand access to the three levels of financing (university, national and, especially, international). Due to the effort and dedication required by Project Management activities, it could be consider that the implementation of a specialized area in R&D projects at universities would allow a greater capacity to identify funding sources and to administrate R&D projects. Following studies will advance on the design of the structure and implementation of these specialized areas.

References Aginako, L. and Otegi, J.R. 2011. “Unidades de gestión de I+D+i externas (spin-outs) - El caso de Euskadi”. XV International Congress on Project engineering, Huesca, Spain. Aguilar, N., Magaña D., Surdez, E. 2011. “Satisfacción laboral en profesores investigadores universitarios”. 11° Congreso Internacional: Retos y Expectativas de la Universidad, Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, México. Alabau, F.J. 2011. “Gestion de riesgos en programas de I+D+i”. XV International Congress on project engineering, Huesca, Spain. Aronson, Z.H., Shenhar, A.J., and Patanakul, P. 2013. “Managing the intangible aspects of a project: th eaffect of vision, artifacts, and leader values on project spirit and success in technology-driven”. Bauer, W., Bleck-Neuhaus, J., Dombois, R. 2010. “Desarrollo de proyectos de investigación”. Universidad de Bremen, Servicio Alemán de Intercambio Académico (DAAD). Cassanelli. A. N., Cantú, A., Moreno J., Rossetti, G., Arcusin, L., De Greef, M. 2017. “Instrument Design to Diagnose R&D Project Management Activities at Universities”. Iberoamerican Journal of Project Management (IJoPM). ISSN 2346-9161. Vol.8, No.2, A.E.C., pp.20-30. Cassanelli, A.N., Benavidez, K.N. 2014. “Equipo de Proyectos de I+D, Asignación de Trabajo sin Valor a Recursos Humanos de Alta Calificación”. Iberoamerican Journal of Project Management (IJoPM). ISSN 2346-9161. Vol.5, No2. Cassanelli, A. N., Fernández Sánchez, G., Guiridlian, M. C. 2016. “Principal Researcher vs. R&D Project Manager: Whoshould drive R&D?” R&D Management. ISSN: 1467-9310. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12213. Cassanelli, A.N. Guiridlian Guarino, M.C. Fernández Sánchez, G. 2014. “Proyectos de I+D, Caracterización del Tipo de Investigación y el Rol de Gerente de Proyectos”. Iberoamerican Journal of Project Management (IJoPM). ISSN 2346-9161. Vol.5, No2. Cassanelli, A.N., Benavidez, K.N. 2013. “Gestión de Proyectos, Madurez en Equipos de I+D en la Universidad Nacional de Mar Del Plata”. Iberoamerican Journal of Project Management (IJoPM). ISSN 2346-9161. Vol.4, No2. Cassanelli, A.N. 2012. “Proyectos de I+D, Aplicación de Metodologías de Gestión de Proyectos”. Iberoamerican Journal of Project Management (IJoPM). ISSN 2346-9161. Vol.3, No2. Cassanelli, A.N., Lombera, G. A., Malizia, A., Iglesias L. 2011. “Proyectos de I+D+i, oficinas de intermediación entre el sector productivo y el de ciencia y tecnología de Argentina”. Iberoamerican Journal of Project Management (IJoPM). ISSN 2346-9161. Vol.2, No2. 7


Cassiman, B. And Veugelers, R. 2006. “In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition”. Management Science, 52, 1, 68–82. Codner, D.; Kirchuk, E.; Benedetti, G.; Aguiar, D.; Del Bello, M.; Barandiarán, S. 2005. “Evaluando el impacto de los instrumentos de promoción científica: problemes metodológicos y estratègies empíricas”. IV Jornadas de Sociología de la UNLP, La Plata, Argentina. Divjak, B. andKukec, S.K. (2008). Teaching methods for international R&D project management. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 251–257. Dodgson, M., Gann, D., and Salter, A. (2006). Therole of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter&Gamble. R&D Management, 36, 3, 333–346. Gagnon Y.C. 2010. “The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook”, Presses de l’Université du Québec. Giménez, L.G. 2008. “Modelo de gestión de calidad en proyectos de investigación y desarrollo en el ámbito de la Universidad Tecnológica Nacional acorde a la norma internacional ISO 10006: 20031”. Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior, vol. 13, núm. 1. Guiridlian Guarino, M.C. 2016. “Sector de I+D, estructuras de organización, competencias del gestor de proyectos y del investigador principal”. Tesis de Maestría. Ing. María Clara Guiridlian Guarino. Carrera de Maestría en Administración de Negocios (MBA). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Argentina. Kerzner, H. 2001. “Strategic planing for progect management using a project management maturity model”, John Wiley& Sons, Inc. Kerzner, H. 2011. “Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling”, 10th Edition. John Wiley& Sons, Inc. Lambert, L.R. (2006). R&D project management: adapting to technological risk and uncertainty. In: The AMA Handbook of Project Management. Dinsmore, P.C. and Cabanis-Brewin, J. (eds), 2nd edn. New York: American Management Association Laruccia, M., Ignez, P., Deghi, G., and Garcia, M. (2012). Project Management in research and development. Revista de Gestao e Projetos, 3, 3, 109–135. Lichtenthaler, U. 2009. “Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examinin environmental influences”. R&D Management, 39, 38–54. Mansfield, E. 1998. “Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings”. Research Policy, 26, 7–8, 773–776. Menéndez, L. y Castro, L. 2010. “Análisis de Ciencia e Innovación en España”. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP-CCHS). Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva. “Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Argentina 2011”. ISSN 2344-908X. República Argentina. 2011. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB-2016-1). Niedergassel, B. andLeker, J. 2011. “Different dimensions of knowledge in cooperative R&D projects of university scientists”. Technovation, 31, 142–150. Petroni, G., Venturini, K., and Verbano, C. 2012. “Open innovation and new issues in R&D Organization and personnel management”. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 1, 147–173. Pulido, A., Pérez, J. 2003. “Propuesta metodológica para la evaluación de la calidad docente e investigadora: Planteamiento y experimentación”. Universidad Futuro, Nº8. Rodney Turner, J. 2009. “The Handbook of Project-Based Management, Leading Strategic Change in Organizations”. Third Edition. McGraw-Hill. Roesch S. M. A. 2005. “Projetos de estágio e de pesquisa em administração: guia para estágios, trabalhos de conclusão, dissertações e estudos de caso”, Editora Atlas SA. Universidad Nacional Mar del Plata. 2017. Proyecto de investigación “Estudio sistemático de la gestión de proyectos de 1+D en el ámbito de las universidades”. 15/G478-ING484/17. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Fundación General. Encuesta de Satisfacción a Directores, 2014. Disponible en: https://www.fgupm.es/?page_id=11385 Verma, D., Mishra, A., andSinha, K.K. 2011. “The development and application of a process model for R&D project management in a hightechfirm: A field study”. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 462–476. Villamizar, L., Contreras, W., Sánchez Delgado, M. 2013. “Modelo de investigación en gestión de proyectos para la investigación en ingeniería”. EAN, No. 74, Pp. 54-71, Bogotá. World Bank http://datos.bancomundial.org/tema/ciencia-y-tecnologia. Recuperado 20/09/2013 Yin R. K. 2015. “Estudo de Caso-: Planejamento e Métodos”, Bookman editor. Ynoub, Roxana. 2014. “Cuestión de Método. Apuntes para una metodología crítica”. Cengage Learning, México.

8